what is strange is that in recent times it seems more and more overcast banns baseless and steam is not apparently wanted the thing to even go on the ground - but why should they do that too - if for no reason out of 10 banned players only 2 to a new acc create but they have already won .... I just say, was there to prove they can not even when and how because what happened is we delivered this invite ♥♥♥♥ really just defenseless - something has Nazi trains so behave - LONG LIVE THE DICTATORSHIP - is the motto of steam - the support is incompetent and ridiculous - ". vorausl completed" for 6 days I am waiting for a response which means with screenshots and so busy and do not know what it's all about - the work every day here and there can not offer a solution for - but to happiness one can google but ridicule which are thus not even have wanted to help the

Firstly given that ALL ANTI-CHEAT mechanisms use this methodology, PB, ESEA, nProtect, Warden, etc, you would have to claim that all such systems are 'money making schemes'.

Secondly let us look at the claim itself. It is predicated on two factors

1) Cheaters re-buy games2) That generates revenue

Let's look at these one at a time

1) Cheaters re-buy games

If your business is based on re-buying of games, wouldn't you make more money by banning frequently and often? It makes little sense to devise a business strategy around infrequent intervals of your 'customers' buying stuff. You should be forcing them to buy games much more often. A delayed system is fairly contrary to the goal of 'making more money.

However let's say you say "you need to make it delayed so that cheaters don't give up buying the games" which is somewhat of an odd argument. But let's say we accept that. However you have the other side

2) That generates revenue

Indeed re-purchasing a game does increase revenue.

BUT FOR WHO?

Steam? Are you sure about that? Cheaters can buy games from anywhere. Steam, GG, GMG, Amazon. More likely cheaters would be buying games from cheap cd-key shops instead.

Now your plan to 'generate revenue' doesn't even correlate into an actual revenue stream, because games activated via retail DO NOT generate revenue for Steam. this is a very very poor business scheme if banning users doesn't correlate directly to a user giving you revenue. Especially given that cheaters are probably by and large purchasing their games from cheap cd-key shops, given that many infamous sites are plastered with ads and 'reviews' for said cd-key shops, you're not even making any money by banning a user.

Instead you are LOSING money due to:

1) Increase costs in maintaining a larger and larger steam database of users since users are never deprecated from the system2) Bandwidth wasted re-delivering said content to user3) Staff to maintain VAC and the APIs associated with it

You don't even make money on VAC itself since it's free and doesn't have any per-user/server/ban licensing where infrequent bans would generate revenue.

So no revenue is generated either on the client side, nor on the back end side charged to the publisher/developer.

As noted an cursory analysis of 'vac is a money making scheme' falls apart dramatically once you look at HOW it's supposed generate revenue and how it fails to do that given the current implementation.

If you want to argue about VAC's effectiveness that's fine. But to call it a money making scheme is intellectual laziness.